PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Can you describe how you water exposure makes a preservative necessary?
-
No - it is not.
-
You should have your supplier take the responsibility.
-
I’d not switch preservatives. If you do, you must support 9010 with something for mold and Gram positive bacteria.
-
Heat to reduce and gamma radiation to sterilize. Both will likely screw up your material.
-
For Prop 65 requires labeling for material that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity - “known to the State of California to cause cancer birth defect or other reproductive harm.”
The state lists the chemicals https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list/
There is a ‘safe harbor concept that allows risk assessment exemption of labeling.
For example, you’ll see warnings for alcoholic beverages, fisingc lures (the paint).
-
Ingredients label of virtually all ingredients but trade secret (FDA approval req’d - only ~one ever) and incidental ingredients
The provisions of this section do not require the declaration of incidental ingredients that are present in a cosmetic at insignificant levels and that have no technical or functional effect in the cosmetic. For the purpose of this paragraph, incidental ingredients are:
In this case - Substances that have no technical or functional effect in the cosmetic but are present by reason of having been incorporated into the cosmetic as an ingredient of another cosmetic ingredient.
-
I’m with graillotion. Suggest these are a marketing response to Lume et al They’re nothing special in terms of efficacy - just spray perfume deposition.
-
USP 51/ISO/EP style test is not that hard a challenge - it merely shows there’s some degree of hostility. It is not a validated to anything.
-
Search Google images for ingredient names and look for “Sulfate” as SO4
-
What does the company claim?
-
P&G can afford equipment and methods that break out effects - not that these will translate to something a consumer would perceive.
-
Think you should start with BS and look for reasons that being veracity
-
Pasteurization - heating to 140F/60C - try it. May not have same same effect as with aqueous stuff.
-
Doubt these will be effective. Bacteria filters work with aq. solutions not oils. Preservatives work poorly on dormant cells and not on spores.
-
Mike - none of that supports your melodramatic, chemophobic “dark side title or discussion and the allergic comment is no more valid for synthetics than for natural (so-called and real). Curious re. the “we discovered”. Is the we - Mike the toxoicologist? Please tell us the data and its analysis.
I understand your marketing effort to differentiate. Please explain “very transparent” in sourcing. Are suppliers names and address on your labels?
-
Claiming sales of a product familiar here to no one here but you is not much of an argument when products of the type Meemcha described are sold at huge volumes globally.
I’d also like to hear the defense of “natural” for this product.
-
Maybe Mike can explain - neither seems “natural” to me.
-
The saponification “exemption”?
-
Check with challenge testing. 0.5-0.8 Phenoxy/EHG/with lower pH Na benzoate. If you end more efficacy - add benzyl alcohol. In some formulas, it works well with benzoate.
-
and look for complete kill (not just reductions), hopefully by day 7 and certainly by day 14.
-
The objective of product preservation is to protect consumers. The objective of raw material preservation is to get it to the customer clean.
For product, you might try the CTFA (PCPC) test - it’s not validated either but isn’t so much a pushover as 51. For either - you could use compete kill at 7 days as your standard rather than the current specs. There are also “validated” protocols but not within the capabilities of any but larger companies.
For a raw material - it’s a function of making/packing hygiene and some biocidal intervention (preservative, heat, etc.). For SLS, 70% material, high pH, or preservation works.
-
Regulators/bureaucrats are as uninformed as you, Mike. Hopefully their safety decisions re. ingredients and products decisions are based on appropriate review and risk assessments by toxicologists. That is precisely the basis for FDA’s position on phthalates.
To repeat. Citing its own findings and conclusions of CIR, CDC and NIEHS, FDA comments “… the FDA does not have evidence that phthalates as used in cosmetics pose a safety risk.”
I’m not familiar with Malaysian regulator authorities or their scientific support. For P&G I reviewed and offered comment for ASEAN micro standards and protocols some years back - and was not impressed. What is their position on phthalates?
-
Please explain the experience as the co-founder and Master Formulator of a skincare manufacturing factory in Viet Nam and Malaysia since 2006 that qualifies one as a toxicologist - esp. one with superior technical insight vs. those of CIR, FDA, CDC, SCCP. etc.
-
Let’s also remember the limited relevance of “endocrine disruptor”. In its basic form - it means binding to estrogen receptors - esp. membrane receptors - to start a cascade for gene activation including those of sexual maturity. Parabens e.g. do indeed bind - with an affinity orders of many magnitude less than estrogen and in an a noncompetitive manner so readily displaced by estrogen. That it activates is unsure. but estrogen itself is listed as a carcinogen in this regard.
“Endocrine disruptor” is bandied about by activists with ignorant horror of a zombie invasion while researchers conduct experiments irrelevant to application but eagerly extrapolate data to were all going to die.